The first “gay Prime Minister” has been increasingly under attack during the weekend concerning his and his wife's favourite perversion. I have written about it several times in the past, and I think it is fair to say the roots are mightily angry and many MPs are suitably scared, but still no decisive action is taken.
It is as if many would think what no one dares to say: what has this idiot made of us. Unfortunately, he could make of them a party of undecisive whinos because they are a party of undecisive whinos, torn between a looming revolt among the voters and their inner prostitute suggesting they do not go against the fashion of the day.
Do it, faggots. Grow some balls, and get rid of him. Margaret Thatcher would laugh at your whining attitude, and tell you very clearly how wet you are.
Get rid of him, or you might well discover the Country wakes up, and gets rid of you.
"I don’t know. We’re still trying. We’re trying our best to do it. We gotta listen to people”.
This is the kind of waffle Cardinal Dolan managed to tell ABC talking about the ways the Church should allow perverts (he said "gays") to feel "welcome".
As a Catholic, one cannot avoid feeling embarrassed at the cowardice regularly put on display by this disgraceful man.
Nice words from the Holy Father, again, and I thought I would spend a couple of words with you about them, and him.
More than once, reading the Pope’s utterances, I am reminded of a dish of spaghetti alla Carbonara: a simple, but very savoury and always pleasant dish (actually, I now think I’ll have them for lunch today…). And in fact, if our Holy Father can certainly not be called a theological high-flyer one cannot deny he has, like a good Carbonara, more than some pepper.
The last rustic dish cooked for us from the Holy Father is here, and again it has the strong but genuine flavours of the Italian kitchen: be zealous, don’t be afraid even to annoy, let people know where you stand, do not shrink back from the unpleasantness of confrontation for the right reasons.
Up to here, it is all very well.
The problem I see is, though, that the Holy Father himself is a living example of the very behaviour he criticises.
In the two months since he has been Pope, one issue has dominated the world news both in and outside the religious sphere: the so-called gay marriage. Have you heard one single word from the Pontiff about this?
One. Single. Word?
The one who tells us to be zealous, to be obnoxious, to be unpopular, to dare the fight, and who is the first one who has the duty to be zealous, to be obnoxious, to be unpopular, and to dare to fight, seems more interested in being lukewarm, agreeable, popular, and able to only crash open doors (poverty, social justice, and all that jazz); he manages, though, to be astonishingly silent, and utterly non-existent, when a real controversy presents itself. So yes, this Pope does manage to be annoying, but not for the reasons he (rightly) says we should.
God is punishing us all right for the madness of the last 50 or 60 years, by allowing the Princes of the Church to continue in their ways. We must endure this prayerfully, and hope for better times.
Still, the next time I hear someone saying all must be fine because Francis is the Pope the Holy Ghost hand picked for us I will be tempted to slap him in the face.
You may want to read here at Insight Scoop some interesting reflections about Pentecost. The links between the Old and New Testament are very neatly presented, as is the reference to the voice of God being, always in the Old Testament, associated with fire.
This could be the starting point of some short reflections about Pentecost. How many Catholics know what Pentecost is?
The usual Rorate Caeli has the integral text of Cardinal Policarpo's prayer for the consecration of Pope Francis' Pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima.
There is so much sugar it would spoil every coffee. If I read it again, I'll have to get a medical check for diabetes, so I suggest you inflict the exercise on yourself only once.
The Blessed Virgin thought it fitting to show to the three children of Fatima (operative word here is children) a horrifying vision of hell, which became famous worldwide and helps faithful to keep away from hell to this day and, no doubt, for many days to come. If you read Cardinal Policarpo, there's so much luuuv you think you are in a hippy commune, but no warning about the horrible punishment of hell, and the concrete danger it represent for everyone of us and all those we love.
I dare to doubt the Blessed Virgin will be much pleased with a Cardinal only able to pick on the good parts of the apparition to make of it another exercise in popularity quest, which is the very negation of the true charity the Blessed Virgin had for the children when she showed them the vision of hell.
But here we are: what the Blessed Virgin thought children can not only stomach, but make their own and draw great spiritual profit from, the Cardinal thinks unfitting for adult Catholics, in a message that he certinly knew would get worldwide resonance.
Not only does the Cardinal avoid every explicit threat or even mention of hell; but if you read the last sentence, he produces himself in the usual exercise in V II doublespeak, with a phrase that – particularly in the sugary context – allows all those who so desire to read it in the sense that Mary does lead all to salvation, so we will be all fine.
If you want a good example of what nuChurch is, you need to do no more than to read the Cardinal's message.
Once, of course.
A mini debate has erupted as to how to reverse the trend of slow decline that has afflicted the Church everywhere in the West. I must admit that I am somewhat surprised that there should be such discussions in the first place, because in my eyes what is wrong with the Church, and what should be done to repair her, is so simple that every uneducated devout peasant or peasant's wife living around, say, 1955 could have answered like a shot, far better than every V II polluted theologian.
The decline was caused by having the wrong people doing things the wrong way. The remedy is to have the right people doing things properly.
The faith hasn't gone south because the Wicked Witch of the West cast a spell over us, but because too many within the Church thought it uncool to do Christ's work, and started following the ways of the world instead; starting, of course, from the very top. John XXIII was a prominent example, Paul VI was an even worse one, John Paul II certainly didn't do much to reverse the trend, Pope Benedict didn't have the guts to do what he knew is right, and now we are stuck with the one who gets blessed by the Proddies, goes to Hanukkah celebrations and has the huge Pinocchio puppet and other strange things at his mass. Sleep with V II, wake up with Pope Francis.
This obviously cascades throughout the system. Bad Popes appoint bad bishops, who will be perfectly happy with bad priests, who will not care about the sheep, who will not care about God. This is the Church history of the last 50 years explained in two lines.
The remedy is, again, to do things properly. Priests who care for the salvation of souls rather than social issues, talk about hell rather than “joy” and, generally speaking, make themselves unpleasant. A priest who wears a cassock is preaching all the time, a priest who wears the clericals is renouncing to preach whilst he does, a priest in civilian clothes is preaching for the devil.
Obviously, such a brave, “1955″ priest would go against V II every day of his life; but again, V II was an attack on Christ every day of its life, so this is par for the course.
The Church is repaired by doing things properly. Before V II things were done properly (no, they weren't perfect; nothing human ever is), so it doesn't take a genius to understand that the more and the faster we abandon the ways of Vatican II, the better it will be for all of us.
Sound (means: traditional) liturgy as much as one can; priests in cassock, and utterly uncaring of ridicule and hostility; hell and judgment like there's no tomorrow, and tons of brimstone; no compromise with the world, and no Vatican II rubbish in any way, shape or form. This is, if you ask me – or the above mentioned peasant's family – how to repair the Church.
What do you say? Such a priest would incur the hostility of his bishop, and be soon transferred elsewhere, perhaps even to a place full of mosquitoes? The Pope wouldn't do anything against such a bishop? Every priest who refuses to bow to some extent to the mantras of V II would very soon be silenced or neutralised?
Ah, you see. We have come to the root of the problem here.
You can't really repair the Church until God punishes us with the wrong Popes, the fruit of the wrong mentality and of a Council inspired by Satan. The way to repair the Church is, therefore, to try to be the best we can (layman, priest, bishop, cardinal) and wait for the day – after our death, probably – when God sends us a Pope who starts, once again, to do things properly. No blasted Pinocchios anymore; no clericals; no Novus Ordo masses; no rubbish talk about secular issues. Utterly undiluted, and utterly unpopular Church; then Christ never tried to be the popular guy.
In the meantime, don't hold your breath and thank the Lord if you have a good priest (or, rara avis, a good bishop) around you. They will not repair the Church, for sure; but they will save some more souls, besides their own.
If you google a bit around, you will read the reports about the state of Catholicism following the official data released by the Vatican. Whilst there are some positive elements to be stressed, it is very clear there is no ground for triumphalism.
Yes, the Church is growing. She is growing, in fact, more than the world population, which means she is authentically gaining ground. It is also undeniable that vocations have been on the rise pretty much on a global scale, with a robust growth both in Africa and in Asia. I personally add that the Vatican data do not seem to include the underground church in China, which according to sources I have read in the past might already have more Catholics than the United States.
All fine, then? Not really.
This growth is in fact a very fragile one, because the Church generating it is a very weak one. True, there is sincere religiosity in Africa and Asia, but will the V II church be able to stand the test of the times? Are all those singing and dancing faithful going to pass their faith to their offspring? As in many African countries the Church gains influence and becomes institutionalised, how will they avoid going the same way as the churches in the West, worried about popularity instead of about Christianity? Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. If the liturgy is inadequate, how can it give permanent fruits?
Then there is the always important issue of money. The complex and rather unique “global redistribution system” run by the Church means that the growth in Africa and Asia is propelled by the money coming from the West, with last time I looked Germany in the first spot (Kirchensteuer) and United States in the second. Basically, a bunch of abortion supporters with vague notions of Catholicism is defraying the expenses for the planetary growth and for how long this will go on is anyone's guess. Whilst money is not necessary for the Church to grow, it is certainly useful.
Lastly, and most importantly, is the civilisation issue. If you think, as I do, that Western civilisation is the Civilisation par excellence, the crown of human achievement and the powerhouse of human progress, you cannot look at the matter simply as a question of numbers. The West is being de-Christianised, and if you ask me this is a worse tragedy than the two world wars and the Holocaust taken together, both in terms of loss of souls and in the scale of the events involved. As a consequence, the loss of the traditional Christian heartland cannot but be seen as an extremely painful amputation and disfiguration irrespective of the more or less robust growth obtained elsewhere.
Granted, things are not as bad as they used to be. The worst might (Pope Francis allowing) be over, and even in the West the still little plant of sound Catholicism is growing more and more robust, nor will any Pope Francis ever be able to do – more or less intentionally – much against it. Vocations are on the rise, and the average quality of the priests Western seminaries are forming is very probably much better than the one found in the priests who were formed on the Seventies and Eighties, which is in fact not a great achievement at all.
The Church is growing, but it is not a solid growth. It is a growth fuelled with the money of half-agnostics of dubious faith, generally not supported by sound liturgy, and in the main happening notwithstanding – as opposed to because of – the workings of the Vatican. The message sent by the Chinese archbishop last year, saying in so many words he was ashamed of the corruption of the Church in the West, was a good indicator of what really propels the Church in these countries.
I hope the data released in the last days will not be the cause of misplaced complacency. We are in bad shape, particularly in the West, and we must wake up and react before Christianity is wiped out of her historic heartland, and the Papacy forced to move to Africa or Asia.
The Vatican has announced today Cardinal O'Brien will leave Scotland for a while, after which… It is not yet decided what will happen.
This is, if you ask me, another of those lost occasions. It would have been so fitting and so wise to announce the Cardinal is going to seclude himself in some remote monastery to spend in a fitting way the years allotted to him. It would have been strong and charitable at the same time. Redemption at work, courtesy of the Only Church.
Instead, we have this non-decision, which does not help anyone – not even the Cardinal -, leaves all questions open, and consolidates the impression the Church does go to extra mile to please her buddies. In fact, it seems to me the decision can be read as “the Cardinal will be sent on extended holiday whilst we see whether we can accommodate his wishes without loss of face”.
Five Stars treatment, I would call it. A regard in striking contrast with the treatment of every priest who were to be accused of improper behaviour by a couple of lunatics (say, mother and son; or angry mother and scared son) with an axe to grind.
Not a good day for the Church in Scotland, for sure.
This is one of those days when the nicest thing one wishes to the Tory party is a painful death. I mean, I wish them death every day, but some days I wish them a painful and shameful death.
The Prime Minister has been forced to another humiliating U-turn about Europe, only hours after two Tory heavyweights (Gove and Hammond, the first a possible successor) have stated on TV they would vote “out” to an in or out referendum about he EU, almost in the same hours in which the chameleon was extolling the great advantages for the Kingdom in staying in.
One follows the events, and gets mightily angry. Cameron can be slapped on both cheeks by his lieutenants week in and week out on Europe, but nowhere is the same level of hostility towards him to be seen in the infinitely more important matter of sexual perversion.
You want proof? Many Tory MPs have complained out loud concerning the new so-called “same sax marriage” legislation, but Cameron hasn't deemed it necessary to modify one word of the legislative proposal. Contrast this with Europe, when it is clear by now even to Ed Milliband Cameron is expected to march with his own backbenchers, or call the removal company sharp-ish.
Cameron understands all this. He clearly sees the opposition to sexual perversion does not threaten his position, but has noticed by now whenever there is ferment about Europe his backside is very fast on the line, and very much at risk of a very painful same sex treatment.
The Tories have – even those who bark a bit for the sake of their constituency – largely betrayed this country. They have chosen to prostitute themselves to the inclusive mantras of the time, instead of doing what they are supposed to do first and foremost: fight for the conservation of what is good for the country. They have become a party of stupid champagne faggots and amateur progressives, thinking they can be a Janus party, with either face to be shown according to local convenience.
It is improbable they can win outright in 2015, and not very likely they will manage to keep the coalition in place; but personally, I wish them to lose bad and be supplanted by he UKIP as the (very imperfect) standard bearer of conservatism. The UKIP might one not too distant day go entirely the way of Cameron, but at least the demise of the Tories would put an end to the political aspirations of countless little prostitutes able to sell Christianity to the best offerer.
What a stupid party they have become. Friends of perverts who don't vote for them, and always with the nose in the air to see where the wind blows. Stupid, stupid party.
How I hope it might die.
The mystery of reprobation is one of the darkest but profoundest aspects of Christianity; one in which, as it has been beautifully written, the light of God is so powerful that the human mind cannot grasp it, and therefore perceives it as obscurity. At the same time, this obscurity allows us to better grasp – at least confusedly – the vastness of God’s infinite power, and to better abandon ourselves to God’s mercy.
Still, the observing mind cannot avoid looking around and seeing how the world around him corresponds in actual fact to what he has learnt.
We are, then, infallibly taught God allows a number of people sufficient grace (hence the name) to attain salvation, but without giving them that kind of gentle but factually irresistible grace (called efficacious grace) able to infallibly lead them toward salvation.
This means that those provided merely with sufficient grace all (as in: all) end up in hell, because in God what is willed is realised also, and therefore once God has decreed that Titius will be saved, said Titius will be provided, in addition to the sufficient grace given to all, with that efficacious grace that will infallibly lead him to salvation.
This simple concept leaves one initially rather baffled: God wants all to be saved (in abstract) but allows some to merit damnation out of their free will, by actuating a behaviour and espousing a way of thinking that is entirely of their own doing, and for which therefore they themselves, and not God, are entirely responsible.
Would not an infinitely merciful God allow all to be saved? No, because the goodness of God is revealed both in His mercy and in His justice. At the appointed time, everyone will see God’s mercy and justice perfectly explained and put in practice in himself as well as everyone else: that those who have been saved have been saved because of God’s mercy, and those who have been damned have been damned because of God’s justice, in a punishment they have completely deserved and, so to speak, made entirely out of their own hands.
How can, therefore, people choose in such a way as to merit reprobation? Well, look around you! Think first of all those who very openly and very publicly defy God’s laws, and you’ll have few doubts. But please think further. All those people who think it “cool” to have “gay friends” and can’t avoid mentioning them in the usual non-judgmental context, what are they doing if not entirely espousing perversion in their heart, if admittedly not in their physical behaviour? Have they not already turned their back to God in the most grievous way? Are they not accessory in sin, and very consciously so, every day of their life? How many of them are aware – at least with a sufficient degree of discernment – that the God of the Christians is completely opposed to such perversions, and considers them abominations, but insist in thinking God’s laws rather stupid, “outdated”, plain wrong, or entirely bonkers? Have they not made a choice; a fully conscious one; one taken in the full, or at least sufficient awareness of it being in frontal conflict with the God of the Christians? Where will they hide when the time comes?
The list of such people is very long, and is becoming longer by the day as Satan’s deadly virus of “inclusiveness” metastasises and spreads into the very fabric of our once Christian societies. Nor can in this matter be opposed the argument that “invincible ignorance” is at play: firstly because Christian opposition is still spread enough that almost no one could claim lack of awareness of it – actually, even all Hindu and Muslim colleagues I ever had were perfectly aware of that – and secondly, but crucially, because in such matters we have to deal with natural law, that is: with notions of what is right and wrong that God has put in everyone of us, and that do not admit a plea of ignorance. Everyone who is not eked by perversion is, to a degree, already perverted; better said, has already allowed himself to be so.
Now, think again of what we have reasoned above: that a number of people are provided by God with sufficient (actually: more than sufficient) grace to avoid damnation; but that they, entirely out of their own will, put themselves in a position of such opposition to God’s law that, unless repentance occurs (because of God’s grace: the source of all good) they will merit hell and experience God’s justice for everyone to see. Again, the reprobates deserve their punishment entirely. Millions do it daily, entirely out of their own free will. When confronted with God’s teaching they will insist, in more or less eloquent words, that God is wrong and they are right. They will, every day of their lives, worship the golden calf of the secular societies, “inclusiveness” and “acceptance” of every perversion in a twisted – nay, perverted – concept of tolerance, and a cruel parody of charity. It’s not necessary to attend to black masses to go to hell. Being in agreement with Satan at the moment of death is more than sufficient.
Reprobates are all around us, and in this generation it appears they are taking the upper hand in many Western, and certainly in almost all Anglo-Saxon societies (this means, seen from the other side of the coin, that God allows many reprobates to operate in these disgraceful times). We have no certainty about who is going to be saved or damned and can therefore – in the individual case – not have any certainty of any one person’s damnation, or of our own very much hoped, and daily prayed for, salvation come to that. Still, the Church teaches that there are signs of reprobation and signs of predestination, and it isn’t difficult even for an atheist to grasp the fact that if God exists, then Padre Pio always was a safer bet for salvation than Gore Vidal.
Every day now I see reprobation in action, as the number of those not caring to openly deny or defy God’s laws reaches the millions only in this once great United Kingdom. Some of them will, no doubt, be saved by a merciful God who will efficaciously help them to repentance at some point before they die; but it is a very reasonable assumption (and consistently supported by the smartest theologians before V II) that a great number of those who live in defiance of God and have not shown any sign of reformation also die in the same defiance (a defiance entirely chosen and willed in its content, though certainly undesired in its consequences), and pay the price of their folly.
Satan will get a huge harvest out of this sudden love for sodomy the West has developed in its madness. At the same time, ultimately not one of those who God wills to save will be lost because of the snares of the devil, and those who damn themselves will be the sole responsible for their own destiny.
We, who hope to be saved one day, will continue to fight our battle and stick to the Faith of our fathers, in the very reasonable hope that the words of the Dies Irae will be true for us:
Flammis acribus addictis
Voca me cum benedictis
This is a comment I had posted some time ago concerning the probability that Christopher Hitchens is now in hell. I thought I'd re-publish it because in my eyes it makes a rather valid blog post in itself.
...we don’t know, and therefore we can’t be certain. It would be a sin of presumption for us to do so. Still, a Catholic is not allowed to pray for souls of whom he thinks they are very probably – very probably – in hell, because the Church doesn’t pray for the souls who are in hell.
Interesting comparison on Linen on the Hedgerow between Peter Tatchell and David Cameron’s stance on why perversion would, in this stupid world of ours, be “conservative”.
There is a striking similarity of thinking between the two, which means that of Cameron isn’t a closet faggot himself he certainly draws inspiration from the very public ones.
Every time I read this kind of news, it strikes me anew how deep we have sunk. We live in a world where perversion has become not only mainstream, but object of praise. What the dirtiest prostitute, the most despised person in every community would not have dared to even think one hundred years ago is now on the flag of the Prime Minister.
When I was younger and read on the bible the story about Sodom I found it difficult to understand – in the sense of, to grasp as a concrete reality – how sodomy could have considered so… normal.
A couple of decades later, something truly biblical is happening under my very eyes: the open, official, institutionalised sabotage of Christianity, via the democratically elected leaders of the country.
It didn’t end well for Sodom. Unless they repent, it will not end better for David Cameron, Maria Miller and the other bunch of prostitutes brown-nosing the popular opinion of a godless country, where religion (at least the Anglican one) is now largely confined to hymns in which no one believes and fuzzy feelings unable to even distinguish the clearly good from the outright satanic.
I hope Cameron is taken down fast. Still, the problem is bigger than him, as abundantly proven by the fact that he is still there trying to push his agenda.
The immense stupidity of the “protection” allegedly afforded to religious objection to “same sx marriages” was exposed as a total fraud today, as it emerged military chapels, many of them on Crown land, could be used for such parodies of marriage against the wish of the confession using it. Yes, it also applies to Catholic chapels.
This is today causing vast anger among Tory MP who still say they believe in God. “This indicates where the government is coming from and is utterly contemptible and is entirely as I feared”, said former minister Sir Gerald Howarth, certainly expressing the opinion of many, Tory or not.
Still, to complain is not enough. Cameron’s arrogance must be punished now, or his and his party’s arrogance will be punished even more severely in 2015, when a well-deserved defeat seems in the cards anyway.
Cameron must be taken down now, if the Tories want to keep some Christian credentials. Murmuring and voting against the law will not be enough, as Cameron knows his yellow and red “gay friends” will give him the votes he needs to keep having sex with his wife.
The man is so in favour of sodomy, the party should allow him to taste it on his own political backside. I for myself would have great understanding for such a same-sex political act. Nay, I would outright celebrate it.
Don’t hold your breath, though. It is by now abundantly clear the majority of Tory MPs is against the measure, but will not take a Christian stand beyond murmuring.
Wailing, and gnashing of teeth. This is how, law or no law, it is going to end.
Read here an interesting article about what is apparently happening in the south of the U S of A. In short, it would appear than in those territories traditionally dominated by Protestantism, and that have maintained a solid Christian feeling whilst the Catholic regions in the East were sinking in a sea of indifference and secularism, have now become a fertile ground for the growth of the Catholic plant.
As I started reading the article, I thought immigration – the legal one, or the one condoned and factually promoted by many US bishops – would play a big role in many situation, but this would appear not to be the case. My take on the matter is rather that a growing disappointment with the PC stance of their local community pushes many sincere Christians towards an uneasy search for authentic Catholicism, until by God’s grace they begin to seriously consider what, perhaps, they would have derided or dismissed as largely superstitious only ten years ago.
Does it mean that the local clergy is particularly good? I doubt. Does it mean that it is better than the average in, say, Boston or Philadelphia? Probably.
In the end, and as the article also points out rather directly, it will be much easier even for the less strong among the priests to send out a clear message, if the environment – with his lack of obsessive inclusiveness and political correctness – poses less obstacles to it. A second element seems to be the fact that whilst the Catholics on the East Coast were producing agnostics, the Proddies in the South were clearly producing Christians. Their crops are now, so to speak, ready to be harvested, whilst the Boston priest has to deal with a godless generation, which all too often they also try to appease.
Why do I tell you all this? In order to show that solid evangelisation does not require – at least not yet in the West – heroic efforts and extraordinarily good clergy. What is sufficient is that the priests and bishops do their work. If they do, they will naturally attract those souls searching for Truth; if they don’t, they will produce Catholics of such poor instruction that the more intelligent among them will be attracted by more robustly Christian congregations without even having clear the gravity of their apostasy.
Still it is not too late for a robust work of evangelisation, though this is probably the last generation that can say so. But in order to work, evangelisation must be serious and robust, not rose water Catholicism trying not to offend anyone.
Alas, this is not what is happening, at least in the West. We live in such stupid times that even something so simple like evangelisation must be given a new label and be called “new evangelisation”, as if evangelisation could ever be any different today than it always was.
It doesn’t take geniuses, only serious workers in the vineyard.
Taken from here:
“Ever since Vatican II, the understanding of obedience and authority has taken on new nuances or concepts,” Sister Wirtz told Vatican Radio, “so I think it’s important for us to look at what does Gospel leadership mean today.”
“We’re very hopeful that we will have more open dialogue in the future,” she continued. “I think the LCWR are really using an approach of prayer and reflection, trying to open this channel of understanding from both sides.”
“I think in some circles it’s been recognized, but I think from the circles within the Vatican we don’t hear that recognition,” added Sister Wirtz, an American who also serves as general superior of the Franciscan Sisters, Daughters of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
I was very excited (no, not really) at reading these words, because it is evident to me we are assisting to the birth of a new religion. Sister Mary Lou Wirtz, the head of Mad Nuns United (though they called themselves International Union of Superiors General) has launched a rather shrill battle cry this week, and is now hoping to rally sufficient mad nuns around them, or at least keep her position.
Read again the hilarious statement of the female, and you will see without any difficulty what we are talking about. Even Sedevacantists do not deny the obedience to the Pope, though they deny that a legitimate Pope is in charge. Even Protestants would recognise without any doubt that the absolute cornerstone of the Church is her being based on Peter. There can be no doubt this is a constitutive element of Catholicism: if you take it away, there is no Catholicism anymore.
Not since the, erm, advent (small a) of Msss Wirtz: not only obedience now takes “new nuances”, but actually it has taken a new concept. Obedience now is different than it used to be. The traditional understanding of the Papacy has clearly passed its sell-by date. Gosh, Luther could not have said it better.
Why would things now be different? Why, Vatican II of course. All that free flow of Holy Spirit, finally liberated from the tyranny of Pius XII and Pius XI, has clearly changes things forever. What do we have now? A strange concept named “Gospel leadership”. Let’s try: “And Jesus answering, said to it: Blessed art thou, Gospel: because ink and parchment hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art the Gospels; and upon this books I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.
It is not only that it sounds stupid, it is that there is no Catholicism left in it, merely a vague “Gospeling” meaning nothing, and which can be filled with everything. There can be no leadership of the Gospels, because the Gospels aren’t any part of leadership, and never were able to justify or ground any. There were no Gospels in Jesus’ time, and it was the authority of the Church, led by Peter, that established the very Gospel whose “leadership” should now justify a rethink of the role of the Pope. In Catholicism, leadership is spelled Papa Echo Tango Echo Romeo.
Again: not only is this utter crap. This is crap not based on history or reason, and in obvious contradiction with Catholicism.
Does this deter our new wannabe Prophetess from spitting her bile? No, it doesn’t. The last phrase quoted is so hilarious you wonder what these people smoke in the morning, and can be rephrased as follows: “In some circles of mad nuns there is now a recognition that as you have a penis, we cannot obey to you on any account, and will even theorise a new religion to avoid that; but you, male chauvinist that you are, you do not agree with this”.
Sister needs a doctor and the doctor must, first of all, check her for cocaine consumption. Such outlandish statements clearly denote either that the woman makes use of substances creating a sharp loss of reality, or either that the Vatican is being once again so astonishingly incompetent, deaf, blind and generally faineant that she thinks she can launch provocations like this one without any fear of consequence.
It is high time this bunch of hysteric females were really punished. Kick all those with such idea out and deprive them of the habit (that they don’t use) and of the money on which they scrounge. Let them fend for themselves, if they are oh so social they’ll find local authorities willing to pay for their social activity.
Unfortunately, Sister Wirtz might not be on cocaine, and know very well what she is doing: bitch without end for a small correction, and you will avoid the exemplary punishments.
The CNA has another rather puzzling article about the way Archbishop Sartain says he is going to deal with the
witch "sisters" of the LCWR.
Now, everyone understands some diplomacy is in order here, and it is not improbable some rather harsher words have been and will be pronounced in private.
But is this really the case? Let us reflect the "sisters" have been going on undisturbed for around four decades, and their average age being 74 (as reported in the article: talk about wasted lives...) it is very clear a slow and diplomatic action is totally useless both in general and for the soul of the sisters involved, as the Grim Reaper will be much faster than the slow Vatican diplomacy/re-education intents.
The news is very recent that Cardinal O’Brien would have been ordered to leave Britain and retire in a location evidently chosen by them.
The decision isn’t surprising as, rather astonishingly – or perhaps not; you choose – the troubled Cardinal planned to retire not in a monastery, to spend the rest of his life in retirement and prayer as would be natural in a man just disgraced for his sexual perversion, but in a rural cottage in the fairly remote East Lothian (Country? Scotland, of course!), near a “lifelong friend”. Now let us reflect…
an old homosexual; living apparently alone; in an isolated cottage; located in a parish led by an “old friend” of his; in the same country he has disgraced.
Is it surprising the Vatican has now intervened? I don’t think so.
What is surprising, though, is that the “old friend” of the Cardinal plans to challenge the plan himself, and here the echoes of “vicious” (old queens) become too loud to be naively dismissed. This “lifelong friend” of the Cardinal is so incensed at not having his lifelong buddy oh so near to his old friendly bosom, that he plans to challenge the decision all alone because he is the (legal) landlord of the cottage in the question and the Church can’t say to him whom to have as guest in his cottages.
Cue his words: “I am 72 years old”, “I have nothing to lose”. How passive-aggressive. Truly, this one looks like a first class bitch. The “I have nothing to lose” hint is also profoundly disquieting, as priests aren’t disgraced for challenging a Vatican’s decision and this, in itself, wouldn’t be a problem at all. What would be the problem is if it emerged the lifelong friendship of the two was anything less than appropriate. In which case the reference to the 72 years old with “nothing to lose” and preferring to risk loss of face to the loss of his “lifelong friend” does begin to make sense.
We do not live on the moon, Father Creanor, and your undue bitching in things that have nothing to do with you are wildly inappropriate in the best of cases, and extremely suspicious – not to say scandalous – in the worst. We are talking of a Cardinal of whom a lifelong homosexual attraction has just been revealed, causing a great scandal and loss of prestige for the Church in Scotland. How near you would prefer to have your homosexual “lifelong friend” is utterly and completely irrelevant.
The Church doesn’t want the Cardinal to live in an isolated cottage, in Scotland of all places, because it is simply not fitting, and actually scandalous, that he does. To whom the cottage belongs is neither here nor there. The Church can order every clergyman to leave wherever they want him to live, period, and it is for no prospective “landlord friend” to challenge this. The Cardinal can, of course. I very much doubt he will.
This a “lifelong friend” of the Cardinal.
Perhaps it would be good practice to get information about one’s “lifelong friends” before considering one for a red hat. Who knows how many painful mistakes might be thus avoided.
The news reaches us Cardinal O’Malley will boycott the latest anti-Christian initiative of the latest Jesuit-run institution.
One must truly be stunned at the amount of damage this evil bunch of (real or honorary) atheist, satanic, homosexual bastards are doing to the Church.
It seems like the Jesuits want to go to hell en masse, and are bent on nothing but the most relentless war against Christ until the last one of them has kicked the bucket.
Yes, there will be a small number of good ones among them. Very few, I suppose. But let us be honest, when I read of them, 99% of the time is because of the way they attack Jesus and the Church.
I have experienced the Jesuits in Wimbledon. They’ll make your blood freeze, and I suspect they are considered moderates among their fellows.
The Pope is now a Jesuit. It’s fair to say he should be considered twice responsible if he doesn’t act against this brood of vipers.
If any of my readers has any personal acquaintance with a good Jesuit, I implore him to post his experiences here. It will be a small counteract to a public action bent on a true War On Christ.
I sometimes try to look at my blog with the eyes of a person who sees it for the first time, and try to imagine what would be his reaction. Insofar as these exercises can be made with any reasonable accuracy, I would say the first impression must be of an overload of Catholic imagery (and text; but I think the imagery will at the beginning impress itself in the mind of the reader faster, and stronger).
The proposal are extremely offensive to every sound thinking Catholic because the relevant buildings obviously try very hard not to look like churches, which says a lot about the clergymen who have selected them, and who are obviously trying very hard not to do Catholicism.
This is the more offensive to me, an Italian, coming from a Country where beauty is lost worshipped, and countless beautiful churches are such a great part of the beauty we have everywhere, from the Eternal City to most of the small centres and even villages.
These projects are, therefore, expression of people who are not only enemies of spirituality, but also enemies of beauty, which adds insult to injury.
The northern Church is to be located in Ferrara, whose (huge) historic centre makes of it one of the most beautiful cities in the world, no exaggeration. That people accustomed to such stunning beauty may adapt themselves to worship in an opprobrium like the one depicted is more than I can understand. I'd personally prefer to drive or walk longer, and worship where I feel I am, actually, in church.
People more expert than I am will be able to tell you more exactly what the consequences of this for the soul of the fake Catholics involved will be. I personally cannot avoid seeing in such work not only an insult, but an outright attack to Catholicism.
Whenever I see such buildings, I cannot avoid hoping they might one day become the target of some high-precision Israeli air raid. Though frankly more traditional methods would work fine, either.
Our shepherds work against us; either stupidly trying to get some imagined “approval” from the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons, or willingly try to demolish everything that is specifically Christian, let alone Catholic, in our spiritual tradition.
These buildings are not only eminently ugly, they are eminently wordly.
Like the people who promote them.
“One of the most horrifying and widespread diseases in the Church today is the lethargy of the guardians of the Faith of the Church. I am not thinking here of those bishops who are members of the “fifth column,” who wish to destroy the Church from within, or to transform it into something completely different. I am thinking of the far more numerous bishops who have no such intentions, but who make no use whatever of their authority when it comes to intervening against heretical theologians or priests, or against blasphemous performances of public worship. They either close their eyes and try, ostrich-style, to ignore the grievous abuses as well as appeals to their duty to intervene, or they fear to be attacked by the press or the mass media and defamed as reactionary, narrow-minded, or medieval. They fear men more than God. The words of St. John Bosco apply to them: “The power of evil men lives on the cowardice of the good.”
Dietrich von Hildebrand
If you ask me, Archbishop Chaput is right and wrong in his observation that if Catholic voters had been more ready to abandon Nazi Democrats in the past, things would not have come at the point they are now. He is certainly right if we observe only the immediate cause of the Catholic behaviour; he is, I daresay, rather wrong if we look a bit further than that.
It is perhaps useful to reflect a bit about the different ways Catholics see hell. This will certainly not be new to any reader, but might be of some use for the non-readers of their acquaintance.
Probably a sizeable minority of baptised Catholics do not believe in hell. They are in most cases not aware that this is contradiction with Christian teaching. Hell is simply not on their radar screen, the priests they occasionally talk to accurately avoids the subject (he is so focused on being “nice”, you know) and, on the rare occasions when they darken the doors of a church, for example for a funeral, Father is so full of implicit heavenly promises the thought would never occur to them that hell really is an option. It is noted that some theologians of fame defend this position by making of hell an empty place – which amounts to the same, plus useless work, and also to saying that Jesus has been lying to us these 2000 years -. One of them was slated, if memory serves, to become Cardinal.
Then there are the “Hitler and Stalin” crowd. Yes, hell exists, but not for me or anyone I know. Normal people, nice guys and lads who are so good at telling jokes, can certainly not go to hell. Look, he invited me to a barbecue! Come on, this is a loving heart, how can he go to hell? These group are hardly pressed to say who goes to hell, because their scarce knowledge of history does not allow them to make even many examples of evil people. What is clear is that they must be seriously, seriously evil. Therefore, in their everyday life hell plays no role whatever, and “fear of The Lord” is to them a very abstract concept. One can be a sodomite suddenly died whilst sodomising his “partner” and they will never have the shadow of a doubt; “love” and all that, you know….
Then there are those who have been properly instructed. They know the Jesus' insistence on hell can only mean hell is a concrete possibility for everyone of us, and why we cannot know the numbers, we do know the rules: if one dies whilst not in a state of grace, he is doomed. This group have a far more realistic expectation about their danger: they know it is real, and no one of the people they know is exempt from some degree of danger. These people have fear of the Lord, know what it means and teach their children to have the same attitude.
Now we can make a simple game, and try to estimate how many out of 100 baptised Catholics, say, in our country, belong in each group. Then we can go on theorising an abstract level of risk among the categories, obviously considering that those who do not fear hell will have very little fear of the Lord in their daily lives, and those who think hell is a very difficult place to land to will not be much better situated. Lastly, we can think of how the clergy will be situated who have, for an entire lifetime, kept the dangers of hell away from their sheep, or have not believed in hell in the first place.
Suddenly, hell becomes a very concrete possibility.
Beautiful words from Pope Francis yesterday, talking in front of representatives of nuns from the entire planet. Citing Paul VI, the Holy Father stressed the absurdity of loving Christ without loving the Church, or in any way feel the two as separated. A mistake, I venture to add, that if it is bad enough in a Protestant who has inherited this delusion, is not pardonable in a nun who to this very Church willingly chose to pay obedience.
Still, I can't avoid being alarmed. The frequency with which the Pontiff mentions Paul VI makes it not unrealistic that he picked this very Pope as the model to be followed in the shaping of his papacy. The problem with that is that whilst Pope Paul VI was never bad at talking, he was pretty much of an absentee Pope when it was about acting. From the Liberation Theologians in South America to the mad nuns in North America, and from the altar girls in Germany to the Dutch Schism in the Netherlands, Paul VI was such a spectacular disaster that one wonders whether he could have done any worse if he had wanted to.
The Pope we have now has not openly indicated that he intends to model his papacy on Paul VI's, but his willingness to talk a lot in abstract whilst steering well clear of concrete conflicts happening in many countries of the West does indicate a Papacy in Montini style: when I have encouraged you to behave properly, I have done enough. Add to this his frequent references to his being (merely, as it is to be interpreted) the “bishop of Rome” and you have the picture.
This is recipe for a replay of the troubles of Paul VI's disastrous pontificate, and already the Germans play with “deaconesses”, utterly unchallenged at least in public, and thus allowed to confuse millions of Catholics.
Pope Francis went to pray in front of the tomb of St. Pius X (yours truly reported).
Up to now, it doesn't seem he was inspired much.
The impending beatification of John Paul II will no doubt cause many questions among non-Catholics as to what this beatification is, and might reinforce many of them in their errors and misconceptions about this beautiful Catholic institution of beatification and canonisation.
I'd like here to give some very short explanations in bullet points, in the hope that in the coming months some non-Catholics may end up here and get some benefit from them and that Catholics may get some points to give explanations if and when required.